Help Me Understand
by jhwygirl
How does allowing discrimination against a particular group of individuals help their freedom? How does it impinge yours?
What kind of religion actually promotes hate? Isn’t God and religion about love? How does a government and its citizens standing up against discrimination discriminate upon someone’s religion?:
One more – What I want to know is how does taking away someone’s freedom take away this person’s civil rights? Exactly what civil rights will this person lose by seeing that another gains theirs? Because I didn’t realize that we had a civil right to discriminate….although as I understand it, that question has indeed been asked by a councilperson who opposes the ordinance.
No, councilperson, you do not have a right to discriminate against another person…..
I ask these questions open and honestly. Maybe an opponent that holds some of these beliefs might take the time, in writing where then can fully articulate their point, answer those questions?
It seems that there is a whole lot of focus in these pictures on freedom, and I do honestly find that perplexing. How does someone else living freely hurt your freedom? Any clarity that an opponent can offer would be much appreciated.
Recent Comments
Miles on A New Shelter for Vets or an E… success rate for In… on Thirty years ago ARCO killed A… Warrior for the Lord on The Dark Side of Colorado Linda Kelley-Miller on The Dark Side of Colorado Dan on A New Shelter for Vets or an E… Former Prosecutor Se… on Former Chief Deputy County Att… JediPeaceFrog on Montana AG Tim Fox and US Rep.…
April 5, 2010 at 10:52 pm
That’s some strange signage. Those folks seem to be conflicted about freedom, the constitution and religion. I like to think our council members are more thoughtful, and have more clarity, than this small, misguided group.
April 5, 2010 at 11:08 pm
The right of association.
It is the use of violence to force association that creates conflict.
If I do not want to be with you, around you, and I want you out of my house/business/land, etc. it is my right to demand it.
This exists for you too. If you don’t want me in your house/business/land/blog – then you have that same right.
Discrimination is core to freedom.
“If we don’t believe in freedom for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.”
All institutions, regardless of ideology, promotes division.
Institutionalized society creates government – which exists by defining and promoting differences, and destroys established norms of ‘sameness’; family, community, etc.
Same with institutionalized spirituality. That is what ‘sects’ are all about – the small differences in spiritual belief become the core and functional focus.
God, yes.
Religion, no. Religion is about using power and influence over people.
Government fuels it.
A person manages it by avoidance and lack of legitimacy.
Civil rights are grants from government, such as voting.
Freedom is inherent as a human – there is no grant.
Civil rights are arbitrary and precarious. Concentrate on human rights – you will see clearly then.
Correct. Government law has attacked human rights and destroyed your right to discriminate.
If you accept this, you have traded in your human right for a random, arbitrary and careless operator of civil rights – which can be removed upon a whim of some bureaucrat.
I believe it is a bad trade.
Mistake.
You have a human right to chose with whom you wish to associate – be very, very careful before you surrender this for some government arbitrary muck.
It takes a lot of energy to unwind the mess that false dogma and paradigms have infected the People’s brain.
Start with truly understanding what is freedom.
Know that it is immutable.
Then everything will be clear.
It cannot.
But do not believe that forcing someone to accept or associate is not an act of freedom – but its destruction.
“If we don’t believe in freedom for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.”
April 6, 2010 at 3:35 am
Black Flag says:
“Discrimination is core to freedom.”
Wow. That should be in the Constitution. I know that’s what our forefathers fought for; the right to discriminate.
April 6, 2010 at 1:07 pm
the right to discriminate
Without it, the right to chose with whom you wish to associate is destroyed.
Freedom is not just saying “yes”, it is the power to say “no”.
April 6, 2010 at 1:14 pm
petetalbot,
PS:
Do you believe the Constitution gave you your rights?
April 6, 2010 at 1:26 pm
Don’t know about Pete, but I certainly do.
See, the problem with inalienable rights is that they can be denied at the whim of another without a structure of protection for them in place. The problem with many who ‘read’ the Declaration of Independence is that they read one line and think it matters outside the whole. It doesn’t. Without a Constitution and rule of law, you have no rights, save to breath for a while, make some choices, and scrabble after whatever makes you happy, until life ends. With a Constitution, the Constitution, you have rights among a given association of people, a society.
April 6, 2010 at 1:47 pm
Wulfgar,
It is a piece of paper with words on it written by dead men.
It has about that much “power” to protect my rights – about Zero.
I protect my rights not some yellowish piece of paper.
Artificial law (ie: government law) does not protect rights – it destroys them.
Natural Law of Men protects rights – by its immutable recognition of them.
April 6, 2010 at 2:13 pm
Tell us all that next time you have to call the police, or an ambulance, or for that matter, get mail or use the fucking phone.
April 6, 2010 at 3:05 pm
Your characterization is glib and meaningless. The sovereign exists and has power over you, constrained only by the express and implied provisions of the state and federal constitutions. Call it whatever you want; the effect is the same.
April 6, 2010 at 3:30 pm
Referring to whom, klemz?
April 6, 2010 at 3:41 pm
The anarchist. At this point I can’t choose who it appears I’m replying to.
April 6, 2010 at 6:51 am
Am I the only one who noticed that all the people protesting in the pictures are white?
Feigned indignation seems to be a powerful force for them.
April 6, 2010 at 7:37 am
Look closer.
White hoods are stuffed in their back pockets.
April 6, 2010 at 9:50 am
Swede, every time you say something like this… I get choked up. It reminds me that there is a progressive inside of you just yearning to be free.
April 6, 2010 at 10:00 am
My favorite thing is how 90% of them are hiding behind their signs.
April 6, 2010 at 10:09 am
Am I the only one who noticed that as of the 2000 census over 94% off all the people in Missoula County are white? It doesn’t shock me to see that the members of any particular group around here are all white. (Not that *all* white people are bigots, only some.)
April 6, 2010 at 7:52 am
Took the nom de plume in honor of the victory of Duke basketball last night; they struck a blow for people of privilege everywhere!
Anyway, I don’t know if the poster above is the “only person who noticed” the protesters’ race. I wouldn’t have noticed their race, age, gender, or physical condition, either, although there are plenty of posts here and elsewhere about “white” and “fat” and “old”, “guys” at least three of which are protected against discrimination for certain activities. Would it be okay to point our their race if it were a protest involving only black people, or native americans?
Actually we do have the right to discriminate against other people. Are you shrinking in horror? Give me a break. We don’t have the right to discriminate on the basis of race, religion, creed, gender, age, etc. The ordinance does take away the right to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or preference. That’s why those would an addition to “the protected classes”. They’re “protected” against our natural inclination to discriminate.
The question in front of the council is whether sexual orientation and preference should be a protected class like race or gender or baby boomers.
Arguments like, “you don’t have the right to discriminate” or “I have the right to discriminate” won’t help them decide that question. The latter, “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone” was tested at lunch counters and bus systems all over the south. You’re wrong. You don’t. Not “service”, nor rent to, nor hire, nor teach, etc.
jh, “what kind or religion promotes hate”? Are you blankin kidding me? You ever see pictures of planes flying into the world trade center? You ever see the aftermath of suicide bombers? Have you read the history of the Inquisition, the Crusades, or establishmentarian colonial new england? Ever read about the division of post colonial India? A more appropriate question might be, “what kind of religion doesn’t?” We will continue to hang witches, metaphorically, if we don’t someday learn that.
April 6, 2010 at 2:33 pm
My take on the “what kind or religion promotes hate”? question. No religion promotes hate. Having spent some time in Muslim countries (Turkey and Malaysia, to be exact) nearly everyone I encountered was accepting and tolerant. I got along with them quite well.
It’s the extremists, in all religions, that “promote hate.” It’s easy to twist the Bible, Quran, the Talmud — even the Sutra and Veda — to promote hate. Unfortunately, there is no shortage of people who will corrupt religious teachings to advance their self-serving agendas.
April 6, 2010 at 5:44 pm
Pete, don’t confuse manners with an open mind.
April 6, 2010 at 10:09 pm
You got me on that last paragraph, and yeah, I know. Hell, I’m a former Catholic, cut and freed from one of the worse murderous felonious institutes of all time..
Mea culpa there, for sure…but I am in agree with Pete on the blanket painting of terrorists as members of a violent religion is not true.
April 6, 2010 at 9:18 am
I’d like to see their birf certificates.
April 6, 2010 at 10:47 am
Ironies too rich to swallow: People protesting for their rights and freedom (to discriminate) and yet they were instructed not to speak! http://www.missoulian.com/news/local/article_c62ec98c-4133-11df-a2ef-001cc4c002e0.html
One of their signs: “Not in our town”–the rallying cry from Billings, MT that started an anti-hate movement! Billings citizens’ vision? “We envision a community free of hatred, intolerant of intolerance, where justice thrives.”
http://www.niotbillings.org/
A sign that reads, “Mayor stop using children” when the protesters themselves brought a child who held a sign reading “Keep me safe.”
April 6, 2010 at 10:11 pm
The one woman that wouldn’t speak to a reporter because Erickson told her not to?
Hypocrites.
You got it with the kids, too. Unbelievable.
April 6, 2010 at 10:50 am
“Anyway, I don’t know if the poster above is the “only person who noticed” the protesters’ race. I wouldn’t have noticed their race, age, gender, or physical condition, either, although there are plenty of posts here and elsewhere about “white” and “fat” and “old”, “guys” at least three of which are protected against discrimination for certain activities. Would it be okay to point our their race if it were a protest involving only black people, or native americans?”
You can point out whatever you want. We all discriminate; it’s how the human mind works. The statutes say you can’t discriminate against certain classes in certain ways (unless you can because of an overwhelming public interest, varying on the basis of the discriminated group – it’s frankly easier to discriminate on the basis of age than gender and on gender than race).
April 6, 2010 at 12:37 pm
For arguments sake…
Lets say for example that my mother has an extra room to rent. She is a pretty fundamental religious person and believes that being gay is a sin. Right or wrong, should she be forced to rent to and invite someone into her home that she believes is doing wrong? Doesn’t that infringe on her rights?
PS, the fact that they’re all white has nothing to do with racism…perhaps closer to the fact that we live in Montana!
As for the argument that violence against gay/bi/transgender people will be solved by this, I have to say “bah hah!”. The ignorant assholes who would beat a person today, will do it after the ordinance passes too.
April 6, 2010 at 1:35 pm
You’re creating an argument based on false choices here, Tobie.
Nobody is forcing your mother to rent her room. If she decides to rent her room, and two people apply, the choice to rent to one or the other is hers. If she discriminates against one to choose the other, she may be liable for discrimination, but no one is going to force her to rent to that person.
If only one person shows up to rent, and she doesn’t want to rent to that person, then it is a choice between renting or not renting that she is free to make. Again just because she offered a room for rent doesn’t mean that anybody is going to force her to rent it.
April 6, 2010 at 3:13 pm
JC, I think she would have to keep it off the market for a set period of time or her reasoning would be considered pretextual, and the discrimination illegal.
On a side note, I’m not going to get into it here, but believe me when I say that things get incredibly complicated when a private actor discriminates on the basis of behavior pursuant to religious beliefs held by that seller.
April 6, 2010 at 5:48 pm
“My renters, my choice”?
What is this, 1960s South Carolina?
The answer now, just as it was then, is that you cannot discriminate on the basis of a protected class. Just substitute “black” for “gay”.
I remember hearing plenty of Biblical quotes justifying segregation then, too.
April 6, 2010 at 10:13 pm
Should it also be legal to discriminate against your mother because of her religious beliefs? Or her skin color? Or her sexual orientation? Or the fact that she is a mother?
Which discrimination do you prefer? Your discrimination or other people’s?
April 6, 2010 at 12:39 pm
PS…I have to say that some of the hate you talk about is being exhibited in your comments too. Do we need to add Christians and republicans to this ordinance too?
lol
April 6, 2010 at 12:55 pm
Religion is already a protected subset, so it seems a bit backwards to claim that one shouldn’t have to rent to gays due to moral bent, but would be prohibited from denying Muslims, Jews or Catholics. The value judgment is the same, is it not?
April 6, 2010 at 1:12 pm
Wulfgar,
Exactly, Mr!
The value judgment of prohibiting discrimination applies to everything
If you apply it to religion, I’ll apply it to culture, then you apply it to sex, and I’ll apply it to age, then you apply it to size, and I’ll apply to clothes, then you apply it to hair color and I’ll apply it sleeping arrangements… and so on.
Once the freedom of association is destroyed, you’ve lost your freedom.
April 6, 2010 at 1:17 pm
No, Flag. You’ve lost some freedom, rather a necessity for a social animal to remain social, wouldn’t you agree?
April 6, 2010 at 1:43 pm
Wulfgar
No. Not one bit.
I chose and make free choices that are important to me.
I may not like the color of your hair – but I freely chose on my own reasons whether I suck it up, and still chat with you.
I can cherry pick any reason, pro or con – and decide – for myself – whether I sit or whether I go.
The moment some other person decides for me is when I have lost freedom.
April 6, 2010 at 2:18 pm
Dude would you just stop. The word you’re looking for is “choose”, not “chose”. It is a personal pet peeve of mine, but at least learn the proper use if you’re going to try and diss me.
April 6, 2010 at 1:30 pm
You always have your ~personal~ freedom of association.
But where you get the notion that your ~business~ enjoys similar freedoms is nonsense.
April 6, 2010 at 1:41 pm
JC,
Because it is -my- business and not your business.
So you have the freedom, but you can’t control your own property?
Interesting argument, JC! ;)
April 6, 2010 at 2:20 pm
Not when you do it in violation of the laws that gave you the rights over that property in the first place, pal.
April 6, 2010 at 2:56 pm
The only reason you can have a ~business~ is because you entered into an agreement with the state.
If you want to operate in the venue of state and federal corporate law, then you must adhere to the laws controlling it.
Of course, if you want to assert that state and federal governments have no vested interest in allowing you to create and run a business, then you’re free to have your own business and run it according to whatever notion of natural law you want. And discriminate against people however you choose.
But that won’t keep the rest of us from asserting that you are breaking the law and will pay the consequences.
History is full of fools like you who assert a different authority and wind up in jail or worse.
April 6, 2010 at 3:18 pm
Suffice it to say, JC is right. when you engage in commerce you avail yourself to the protections of the government and must be subject to its control as well.
April 6, 2010 at 3:32 pm
I’m thinking Mr. Flag might well prefer the Randian Utopia of Somalia.
April 6, 2010 at 6:30 pm
they tried starting a “free” state in new hampshire. it was a social experiment by so called anarcho-capitalists to create a no holds barred free market free for all, but it ended up attracting creeps, pedophiles, and folks so fringe they championed their right to engage in cannibalism if they wanted to. sounds like a lovely place to raise a family.
April 6, 2010 at 1:56 pm
One question: why the hell wouldn’t you want to rent to a gay, lesbian or transgender person? If said person is trashing the property, having loud parties all night long, parking their car on the lawn, not paying rent, etc.; well, you’ve got a valid complaint.
But you’re not going to rent to them because of their sexual orientation? Come on, people, time to evolve.
April 6, 2010 at 3:47 pm
Personally I see no issue.
However, my mother would not be comfortable with activities that SHE considers immoral taking place under her roof.
Of course I can see holes in that argument too because she doesn’t believe in premarital sex, yet all her kids had it.
I don’t know. Its a complicated issue.
April 6, 2010 at 4:12 pm
I would be easier, after the Shephard Act, to claim that she denied a gay couple the apartment because of a moral opposition to unmarried couples living together than to try and defend the same discrimination on the basis of the renters’ sexual orientation.
April 6, 2010 at 10:16 pm
The gay couple is not afforded the opportunity of marriage, though, klemz. Does that not affect the situation too?
April 6, 2010 at 10:50 pm
I would have to do research to get an answer on that. There aren’t a lot of marital status discrimination cases and from the ones that I’ve seen it’s pretty easy for the free exercise rights of the landowner to justify the discrimination, especially when it’s a live-in landlord discriminating. The above comment merely expresses my intuition that sexual orientation-based housing discrimination cases are easier to push through now that there’s widely-established state and federal policy recognizing gays as a protected class (though, just to be clear, the Shephard Act does not in itself address housing discrimination)
April 7, 2010 at 12:22 am
They are so afford such marriage!!
Every person has the right to be with whomever they want to be – mutual and voluntary!
Ooohh – you mean government marriage – that thing were you invite a violent, evil, careless, and care-less entity into the middle of your most personal of relationships….
Why would you want to do that???
April 7, 2010 at 1:38 pm
Government marriage, the property relationship defined by law. You do favor property right, don’t you BSFlag? Funny how law has to define what that is …
April 7, 2010 at 2:21 pm
Wulfgar,
Of course I favor property rights.
It has nothing to do with government.
Government destroys rights including those of property.
Judge Andrew P. Napolitano in Lies The Government Told You
He writes that the concept of private property inherently entails “the right to exclude [others] . . . even the right to exclude the government.”
April 7, 2010 at 2:59 pm
At no time in the history of formal property law has that been the prevailing idea behind property ownership. Private property (a relatively recent development) cannot exit without the endorsement of the sovereign. Someone always has a bigger stick.
April 7, 2010 at 3:11 pm
Klemz,
At no time before 1648 (or so) did the formal recognition of the idea of Religion freedom was made.
Thus, those that practiced religious freedom before 1500 were doing…..what?
Private property rights have existed since the beginning of history.
Do not confuse the mere writing with the lack of existence.
Someone always has a bigger stick – the “Might is Right” doctrine.
As already described – that is an idea in contradiction to civilization.
April 7, 2010 at 3:29 pm
I agree, so how do you plan on asserting your right to exclude against a more powerful aggressor if the government isn’t there to recognize your right of ownership? The law doesn’t protect what it doesn’t regard to exist.
I’m not sure what your point is with freedom of religion. Traditional property law recognized all property as in the possession of the sovereign and leased to citizens (lords) via life estates or some variation thereof (the point being, it could be revoked at will). That’s fact.
April 7, 2010 at 3:55 pm
Klemz,
So let me rephrase your question
so how do you plan on asserting your right to exclude against a more powerful aggressor if “the entity that inflicts violence on non-violent men” isn’t there to recognize your right of ownership?
Why do I need to attack non-violent men in order to protect myself and my property???
I do not care what “government” law regards, one way or another.
What a bunch of men who I do not know wrote on a piece of paper in some room that another group of men raised their hands to say “Aye” – means zilch.
What those men agree to does not bind my agreement to it
500 years ago, men could not conceive of praying to God without a Pope.
Today, many people cannot conceive of living without inflicting violence on non-violent men to achieve their goals.
Fact?
No, abstract.
The fact is, I live ->here<- and it is exclusivelymine, not yours.
No matter how many hands you find to wave in the air, that fact does not change.
April 7, 2010 at 9:05 pm
That’s a pleasant fiction. Enjoy it.
April 6, 2010 at 4:18 pm
Is there a rampant discrimination problem in Missoula?
I cannot find a single case of a transgendered person being discriminated against in Montana, despite the power of GOOGLE, or BING – LOL
April 6, 2010 at 6:17 pm
Have you ever asked a transgendered person about their lives in Missoula? How many do you think live here?
April 8, 2010 at 6:26 am
I did a similar Google search, Eric, and I found an example of a transgender woman in Missoula who died under very mysterious circumstances (was most likely murdered), and a more recent example of a transgender woman in Missoula who claimed that a store discriminated against her by not allowing her to use a changing room.
Google searching: you’re doing it wrong.
April 6, 2010 at 6:02 pm
Wulfgar,
How does the Constitution allow me to call the police, or an ambulance or tell me how to use the mail or a phone?
I don’t call the Police, I am very secure.
The ambulance is privately owned.
You still use the mail??? :)
The phone is privately owned.
So, I guess I missed your point about Rights here – somewhere -.
April 7, 2010 at 1:35 pm
Yes, you missed it alright. That’s a sterling chunk of willful stupidity on your part, right there. You completely avoided the whole point of “rule of law”. The Constitution defines rights, whether one exercises them or not.
As much I wish to join your quest to make it to 100 comments, it seems that you’re just going to be a self-aggrandizing jackass about it. Deal with the rule of law, or be considered silly. Others have already commented about that fact, and your avoidance of them is superior than the weak attempt you make here.
April 7, 2010 at 2:08 pm
Wulfgar,
You failed your civics class.
The Constitution does not define any right at all.
It recognizes certain rights. I understand this difference is lost to you.
The Rule of Law:
I follow the Natural Law of Men:
“Harm None, Do What Ye Will”
Any law that causes violence upon non-violent men is evil. I do not follow evil.
“I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.”</b.
April 7, 2010 at 2:36 pm
On the contrary. ‘Got an A.
Again, you are wrong. The law does “define” rights. Recognizing that rights exist by the Constitution is the job of the Courts. Have you ever read the Constitution? Sure as hell doesn’t seem like it. Your attempt at point is specious.
Oh fucking great. A Nietzschean uber-dick. What about laws that afford violence over violent men? Have you ever stomped a flower? VIOLENT! This is not a rule of law, but a rule of pathetic self-subservience.
April 7, 2010 at 2:55 pm
Wulfgar,
You fail.
No where does the Constitution define rights.
Quote:
A constitution is a set of rules for government—often codified as a written document—that enumerates and limits the powers and functions of a political entity.
Specifically, in the US Constitution, the sentence:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Enumeration is NOT defining – it is “listing” Quote:To count off or name one by one
Given that immediately at the start, you are totally confused, the rest of your argument is senseless.
Already explained, Wulfgar.
Natural Law of Mutuality.
“What you do to another man gives the right of other men the right to do to you”
April 7, 2010 at 5:34 pm
Oh Damn. Foiled by Wikipedia.
To “limit” is precisely to “define”. Don’t believe me? Check Wikipedia again, Jackass.
As defined by whom? What’s that? Other men, you say? Wouldn’t that be “law”?
You need to get out of your momma’s basement some more, BSFlag.
April 7, 2010 at 6:28 pm
As defined by whom? What’s that? Other men, you say? Wouldn’t that be “law”?
As defined by the action.
It matters not “what action” you do, you give the right of “that action” to others to do to you.
I poke, you get to poke.
I jab, you get to jab.
Get it?
It isn’t defined by other men – it is the “action” which creates the Mutual response.
And, yes, it is a LAW. Law of Mutuality.
“What you do, gives others the right to do to you.”
April 7, 2010 at 7:40 pm
So, when I beat you to death, you have the right to beat me to death, right? Oh wait …
You are truly an idiot, BSFlag.
April 7, 2010 at 8:11 pm
Wulfgar,
The attempt on my life grants me the right to defend my life from your attack.
True, I may not prevail.
Also true – I may prevail.
But above all, if you prevail or not, you’re still evil.
April 6, 2010 at 6:04 pm
klemz
The State may have power, but that does not make it Right
Where did the State get its sovereignty?
I call it Evil
April 6, 2010 at 9:16 pm
I care.
April 6, 2010 at 6:05 pm
Wulfgar
You should get help from a professional to figure out why such trivial things are so important to you.
April 7, 2010 at 1:29 pm
I don’t find it to be a psychological fault that you are in need of correction, and I provide it. If you do, then you are the one with the flaw, not I.
April 7, 2010 at 1:55 pm
If the only thing you can latch on is mere spelling – and that is the extent of your ability ……
April 7, 2010 at 2:39 pm
Funny. Been kicking your as all over the place but you focus on the one thing you think you have a point over. Here’s a hint, kitten, you don’t. You lose, by your own admission.
April 7, 2010 at 3:13 pm
Wulfgar,
You kick at shadows.
If you think you are winning, I will not interfere with your profound fantasy.
April 6, 2010 at 6:13 pm
JC
No government law gives me my rights, pal.
Absolutely not! There is no agreement with anyone for me to run my business.
Why would I want to avail myself in an organ of evil (corporation) for me to earn my living?
All actions have consequences. Those who obey evil law also suffer consequences. They become beholden to it, and suffer under it.
If you believe you have a right to destroy another persons’ rights, you have granted everyone else the right to destroy your rigts.
Often men defending their freedom die at the hands of those that kow tow to evil.
That’s what makes freedom important – because there are many men are willing to destroy it.
I avail myself of nothing from evil.
April 6, 2010 at 11:04 pm
As I said… “History is full of fools”
April 6, 2010 at 6:18 pm
Wulfgar
Obviously, you are not an avid reader of the Classics.
Utopia, written by St. Thomas More, was a State with communal ownership of land, private property does not exist, men and women are educated alike, and there is almost complete religious toleration.
The novel’s principal message to be the social need for order and discipline rather than liberty. The country of Utopia tolerates different religious practices, but does not tolerate atheists.
So, Wulfgar, Utopia is almost the diametrically opposite of what I support!
So, I’m thinking you love the Utopian State of North Korea, huh, Wulfgar??
April 7, 2010 at 1:27 pm
And obviously, you don’t know the first thing about me, what I’ve studied, or that words aren’t often defined as you choose. Just because Thomas More wrote Utopia doesn’t give him primacy in defining what a Utopia would be. But I think you knew that. You were just expecting your bullshit top baffle us, since your brilliance is very very dim.
April 7, 2010 at 1:57 pm
Wulfgar
*cough*
So the author who coined the word is not the one who defines it…. okie dokie.
As often you do, your responses are worthless – simply a bunch of emotional rhetoric.
April 7, 2010 at 2:41 pm
Ever called an off brand a band-aid? You already look like an idiot. Don’t compound it.
April 7, 2010 at 2:58 pm
Wulfgar,
I am not confused by descriptions as you are.
Your use of Utopia was faulty – displaying your lack of learning.
Now, you know more than you did last week.
Hopefully, you’ll apply the lesson better in the future.
April 6, 2010 at 6:58 pm
historically people (meaning settlers, colonists) used to be more self reliant because they had to be, and the perceived loss of that “freedom” is all wrapped up now in romanticizing how this precious american individualism has been subsumed by an evil government, and to a certain degree, they are right (you just can’t shoot indians and lynch ni^*ers the way you used to).
what folks of my political leanings see is the potential of government to be a positive force in our lives, as long as the crony capitalist impulse toward greed and corruption can be kept from infiltrating and dominating what was originally intended to be a representative system (for land holders, not indians, ni^*ers, or other dark skinned heathens).
when a controversial piece of local legislation tries to address a lack of civil respect for how people (all people) choose to live their lives, of course there will be blowback from ignorant assholes.
just remember, these folks are simply trying to keep fag perverts from molesting their vulnerable children in bathrooms.
April 6, 2010 at 7:20 pm
Lizard,
April 6, 2010 at 7:41 pm
if humans were capable of responsible autonomy, then they wouldn’t need government, or religion. unfortunately, humans are not capable of responsible autonomy.
by the way, what is man’s “natural law”, black flag? might makes right? if it’s there, then take it? fuck everyone but you and yours? i’m curious.
April 6, 2010 at 7:50 pm
Lizard,
Humans are responsible.
Don’t get all cluttered about by the 1% brain damaged. Every species has brain damaged specimens – thus, so do humans.
But that does not reason tyranny.
To protect me does not mean I get to attack you
Man’s Natural Law:
What I do to you, gives you the right to do me
It’s called the Law of Mutuality
If I do not want a punch in the face, I do not punch you in the face.
Like all Natural Laws, there is an equal and opposite consequence:
(1) For me to be free, I must recognize you to be free. Freedom is the lack of imposition of another man.
or
(2)I punch you in the face, and “Good Luck” trying to punch me back. I’ll pound you even deeper into a hole. This is the “Might is Right” doctrine.
(1) Freedom creates civilization
(2) “Might is Right” creates government.
Government is at war with Civilization.
April 6, 2010 at 8:06 pm
no, government is an extension of civilization; at its best it’s an instrument to synthesize the discordant parts of a widely diverse society; at its worst it’s a tyrannical marriage of vulgar capitalism and authoritarianism aimed at exploiting the majority to enrich a miniscule minority.
and the “evil” you go on and on about resides in the greedy impulses of each flawed human being who lusts after power and wealth.
but i like your spunk, black flag, and there is a wondrous simplicity to your thinking. keep it up.
April 6, 2010 at 8:18 pm
Lizard,
No, government is at WAR with Civilization.
The roots of both these abstracts are complete opposite.
Government = self-proclaimed right to initiate violence on non-violent men to enforce its edicts.
Civilization = no man has a right to initiate violence on any man.
Government does not “synthesize” anything. The Free Market synthesizes the widely diverse society.
I like beer, you like wine. Under government, one of us is wrong.
In the FREE market, we both get what we want.
Re: Evil
It is a definition. It is the use of violence on the innocent (non-violent).
If we do not recognize evil in the action of violence upon the innocent then the word “Innocent” and “Evil” has no meaning.
April 6, 2010 at 8:37 pm
the free market does not, has not, and will never exist. at least i hope it will never exist.
because unrestrained capitalism is a very destructive force that includes unlimited growth as its desired economic model.
capitalism needs regulation. just look at the economic meltdown. that didn’t happen because government was doing its job. it happened because corporate democrats and corporate republicans have undermined the government’s ability to regulate the financial sector.
this is getting kind of boring, black flag. got anything else?
April 6, 2010 at 8:31 pm
Great read.
Two thumbs up and a couple bags of popcorn.
April 7, 2010 at 3:28 pm
Why don’t you write a review once it’s all over?
April 6, 2010 at 8:50 pm
Lizard
The market of free men, in voluntary exchange, does exist. You live in it every day.
You exchange your services and buy money. You use money to buy your needs.
All of this is without coercion and without violence and of your choice.
You are merely blind to it like a fish is blind to the water he swims in.
Unrestrained “voluntary and uncoerced” human action.
Yes, you are an advocate of tyranny.
It happened because a monopoly – a grant of government allowed a single private company the sole right to print money.
Capitalism – as a function of the Free Market – needs no regulation other than the prohibition of violence.
The FED is a monopoly by the government. To state that the government undermined the government in its ability to regulate the government – is pretty accurate, actually!
Freedom is boring to those that wish to control other men.
April 6, 2010 at 8:57 pm
wow. i mean really, wow.
what i live in every day is a capitalist system that thrives on coercion and violence to manufacture a surplus of goods. the clothes you wear, the food you eat, the house you may or may not be lucky enough to live in is all derived from the violence of our capitalist system.
and the fed is not part of the government. i’m serious, google it.
April 7, 2010 at 12:11 am
Lizard,
Then you are a victim of mercantilism not capitalism.
Or your definition of violence is bizarre.
I know the FED isn’t part of the government – I said it was privately owned.
It is a monopoly granted by the government
April 7, 2010 at 7:49 am
mercantilism: an economic system (Europe in 18th century) to increase a nation’s wealth by government regulation of all of the nation’s commercial interests.
no, no, no. i am a consumer of unregulated, globally expanding capitalism. i can buy cheap goods because this system exploits cheap labor all around the world.
and deregulation is a primary factor in our economic decline.
you’re right, though, in your comment about the fed–you did acknowledge it is a private institution–and i bet we agree that giving the fed the fiscal power of the printing press was a very bad move we’ve been paying for for a century.
April 6, 2010 at 9:54 pm
very familiar talking points, black flag…..
http://www.publiceye.org/rightist/idennlns.html
April 6, 2010 at 10:15 pm
the only thing people like black flag can help you understand is how to be sprayed with fear and hatred from his little canister… just hint about equal rights and they come out of the woodwork to spray their poison.
http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/religiousright/2413/%E2%80%98christian_warriors%E2%80%99%3A_who_are_the_hutaree_militia_and_where_did_they_come_from_/?page=entire
April 6, 2010 at 10:35 pm
it’s sort of weird defending the potential of competent governance, when i myself think there’s a lot of insidious federal fat to cut from the imperial beast.
what bugs me is there are aspects of libertarian and conservative thinking that i can agree with, which is one reason this whole conversation depresses me–because it’s filled with so much free market right wing anarchist delusional bullshit i’m not sure if i should laugh, or cry.
April 6, 2010 at 10:42 pm
read those links far enough and you will find those talking points black flag is using, liz. he is concentrating on the same economic and individual right arguments that these groups espouse.
April 6, 2010 at 11:18 pm
i read the publiceye piece, which was a good read, and frightening; that christian identity acted as a sort of binding element for previously disparate hate groups is more than unsettling.
but there are little chunks like this:
that i sympathize with, because i also think these groups (that do exist) have a disproportionate amount of influence over government policy.
does that make me a potentially dangerous rightwing terrorist?
this is why democratic complicity in our corrupt system is so dangerous: it exposes that there are kernels of truth in the conspiratorial nature of wealth, power, and the state.
and when a president with a “D” by his (scary muslim) name is serving “their” interests, the ugliest elements of the religious/bigoted/intolerant right rise to the surface.
April 7, 2010 at 12:14 am
Problem Bear,
I espouse the prohibition of violence upon the non-violent.
So, what you think “people like Black Flag” is a fantasy.
Perhaps you’re looking in a mirror?
April 7, 2010 at 7:22 am
Your words mirror posse and christian identity movement talking points too closely to be fantasy, bf.
April 7, 2010 at 9:44 am
ProblemBear.
Either you have an understanding problem or a reading problem.
Whereas the underlying context of your references inferred a use of violence, my specific point refer ONLY to the prohibition of initiation of violence.
How this is similar?
April 7, 2010 at 11:27 am
You are the one who is infatuated with violence. I did not write the word anywhere on this string.
You are known by the company you keep, bf.
April 7, 2010 at 1:31 pm
Problem Bear,
Your understand and/or reading skills are lacking.
I am in my own company.
You are making a strawman argument – and are frustrated no one is falling for it (or at least, I’m not).
April 7, 2010 at 1:46 pm
Or, your writing skills totally suck. You, BSFlag, have promoted contradiction after contradiction. No wonder at all that you are in your “own company”. You are an idiot.
Deal with the rule of law, or go home. It’s a simple choice for you to “chose”.
April 7, 2010 at 9:42 am
Lizard
You are a consumer of the free market – almost every transaction you undertake today is a consequence of that market – a voluntary buyer and seller.
Your opinion is shortsighted and old.
You would rather them have no job and starve, then begin the process of wealth accumulation and prosperity- which must always start from the bottom.
Your understanding is distorted.
Please review this TED video, called “Let my Dataset change your Mindset” – it will help you a lot.
http://blog.ted.com/2009/08/let_my_dataset.php
There has NOT been deregulation.
There has be RE-regulation.
There are three alternatives to money creation.
(1) In the hands of government. This is the ultimate disaster as every government that has created fiat has driven it into worthlessness.
(2) In the hands of a monopoly. This is terrible – it avoids albeit temporarily, the destruction of fiat money – but replaces it with every defect all monopolies create – ever increasing cost of the money with ever decreasing value of money.
The only other alternative is never discussed. Free Market Money. Money is no different an economic good than an apple or coffee. Allowing the Free Market to choose and manage its money would provide the best value to the economy and the consumer and the supplier. However, this probably will never happen in your lifetime.
April 7, 2010 at 11:52 am
the free market doesn’t exist. i’m sorry, but it doesn’t.
and your implication that i don’t want people who are exploited around the world to have jobs is crap. what i want is a more equitable distribution of wealth.
and yes, the financial sector has benefited from DEREGULATION. removing glass-steagall so investment banks could join forces with commercial banks is DEREGULATION. it allowed them to become “too big to fail” thus triggering the supposed need for obscene corporate welfare at the expense of the taxpayer. both bush and obama support this policy.
if your free market existed, the banks would have been allowed to fail. they weren’t. deregulation and a lack of government oversight (the sec was grossly delinquent, as were the rating agencies, etc.) led directly to the kind of economic shenanigans that put the whole global economy at risk.
my opinions are not shortsighted and old, and my understanding is not distorted.
you, on the other hand, believe in something that doesn’t exist, has never existed, and will never exist. government is not the boogeyman we must vanquish like some mythic dragon. capitalism is the system our government serves, when government should be serving the people.
if the government served the interests of the people, it wouldn’t have allowed the biggest transfer of wealth in history. it would have nationalized the big, insolvent banks and sold off their assets. instead bush and obama have enacted a taxpayer-backed welfare program for the perpetrators of this economic collapse.
April 7, 2010 at 1:27 pm
Lizard
Of course it does! You just can’t admit it.
You traded – voluntarily – with dozens of people today to get your needs and wants satisfied. That is the Free Market in action.
Or are you implying that people have a gun to their hand when they buy a hamburger at McDonald’s?
There is only two ways to obtain the goods and services for your life (ie: wealth)
(1) steal it – this is the Political Option
or
(2) earn it – this is the Economical Option
You want to steal wealth and give it to those that did not earn it.
How very political of you.
De- (prefix)
1. away from, off debar, derail
2. down degrade, decline
3. wholly, entirely defunct
4. reverse the action of; undo defrost, decode
Re- (prefix)
“again, back”
The instutions were RE-regulated – a different set of rules NOT a end of rules
If you believe they have no rules, go try to start a bank yourself and test your theory.
Correct.
Oh, thousands have failed. Just not any of the “big boys”.
The FED, as the sole creator of money, is wholly responsible for the economic destruction.
It is incomplete.
Government requires the initiation of violence on non-violent men to enforce its edicts.
It is Evil to the core.
Now, you may for yourself accept this evil and apologize for it, because you may appear to benefit from it.
But that doesn’t change it from being evil.
Free men – voluntarily making decisions about their own lives and free from the impositions of others – serves the people.
April 7, 2010 at 3:39 pm
The repeal of Glass-Steagall Act provisions in 1980, ’82 and ’99 were deregulation. Plain and simple. And this contributed in large part to our banking and financial sector collapse.
You’re full of nonsense. No matter how many words it takes you to make your assertions.
April 7, 2010 at 3:58 pm
Nonsense, JC.
The problem – the FED – existed since 1913.
April 7, 2010 at 4:12 pm
No, the nonsense is yours. You said:
I showed you where provisions of law were repealed, not replaced.
Those repeals effectively deregulated the institutions. They did not un-regulate them completely.
But your assertion that a repeal is a re-regulation is semantic bullsh*t. Just like most everything else you’ve asserted here.
You just want to argue semantics so you can pretend that you know something unique and useful, and feel superior to us.
But there is nothing “natural” about your natural law underpinnings. They are just the attempts of feeble minds to impose law upon the unimposable. They are figments of human delusion.
April 7, 2010 at 4:25 pm
JC,
Glass-Steagall Act –
The Banking Act of 1933 was a law that established the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)….
So, does the FDIC still exist?
So the Act was NOT REPEALED!
Get it now?
Further, additional regulations such as:
1. The Federal Home Loan Bank Board (FHLBB) and the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC) was abolished.
2. The Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS), a bureau of the Treasury Department, was created to charter, regulate, examine, and supervise savings institutions.
3. The Federal Housing Finance Board (FHFB) was created as an independent agency to oversee the 12 federal home loan banks (also called district banks).
4. The Savings Association Insurance Fund (SAIF) replaced the FSLIC as an ongoing insurance fund for thrift institutions (like the FDIC, the FSLIC was a permanent corporation that insured savings and loan accounts up to $100,000). SAIF is administered by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.
5. The Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) was established to dispose of failed thrift institutions taken over by regulators after January 1, 1989. The RTC will make insured deposits at those institutions available to their customers.
6. FIRREA gives both Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae additional responsibility to support mortgages for low- and moderate-income families.
… the list of regulations is not complete, but merely a sampling.
To declare DEregulation was a fault is to be MYOPIC at the extreme.
April 7, 2010 at 4:27 pm
To help you a bit more, free of charge,
is a substantial listing of SOME banking regulations.
http://www.bankersonline.com/abcsoup/abcsoup.html
Now, what were you saying about the LACK of regulation??
April 7, 2010 at 10:33 am
Bf- I read the blog you’re linked to.
You might be able to fool a reptile but not this bear. I smell posse…
April 7, 2010 at 11:15 am
Problem Bear,
Excellent!
But where did I suggest violence as a solution?
April 7, 2010 at 1:43 pm
You don’t have to suggest something that is inevitable along the path. It’s like suggesting a walk through the forest while you pretend there are no trees.
April 7, 2010 at 2:12 pm
Wulfgar,
You pretending to see what is not there is no argument.
Again, where?
April 7, 2010 at 2:45 pm
You’re suggesting children where there is no sex. problembear already posited that violence is inevitable. You’re simply distancing yourself from the inevitable.
Coward.
April 7, 2010 at 2:59 pm
Wulfgar,
You make no sense.
April 7, 2010 at 12:17 pm
i see by reading your blog, flag, that you are considering running for some local civic office. for someone who thinks government is so evil and the free market so divine, that’s pretty strange. do you believe in the need for local and state government? if not, why consider participating?
April 7, 2010 at 12:38 pm
Black Flag, it would be easier for us here to understand you if you would just proclaim your anarcho-libertarian survivalist agenda upfront, instead of trying to rationalize people around to your world-view.
It just ain’t gonna work among free-thinkers.
April 7, 2010 at 1:09 pm
JC,
But that is a label – and like all generalizations – fails when applied individually.
I am not an anarcho-capitalist – though many of tenants associated with that label I support.
My position is mine. I present it in my words. I do not hide behind a label.
if you have an argument – make it. I am confident you will trip on your contradiction
April 7, 2010 at 2:12 pm
Done.
April 7, 2010 at 3:53 pm
“My position is mine.”
And therein lies the problem. One does not build a civilization or society out of individual thought.
Insane asylums are full of people who think they hold the “truth” about “natural laws,” the nature of reality and the universe, and other such nonsense.
I find it hilarious that on one hand we have to fend off the deniers who would assert that science must be tempered by ideology.
Now we have to fend off loonies who think that “natural laws” derive from ideology, and should govern our associations and civilization.
April 7, 2010 at 4:01 pm
JC
Of course you can! That is how it came about – the decisions of millions of self-interested people. No person “invented” society, JC! LoL!
Nature doesn’t care if you agree with its laws or not.
Neither do I.
The concepts are self-evident.
If you chose to legitimize violence on non-violent men, the social order will collapse along with civilization.
April 7, 2010 at 1:12 pm
Lizard,
I do not believe in the need for government.
You do not have a deep background about me.
For those that are eager for government action, I have suggested that operating in a Federal forum is utterly futile.
The closer the politics is to the people, the more powerful individual influence has on that politics. Therefore, if you wish to act in a political way and be influential, it is by far the best to act as local as possible – which, for most, is civic politics.
IF and a very big if, I was to engage in politics, that is the level I would act upon.
April 7, 2010 at 1:23 pm
how do you suppose towns and cities would function without local governments? do you really see no actual need for local governments? do you think the private sector can address all the needs of a community?
April 7, 2010 at 1:44 pm
Lizard,
How did towns function without government in the first place?
Answer: just fine.
Do I see a need to use “violent force on non-violent men”.
Answer: No.
Do I think Free market system can address all the needs of a community or person?
Answer: No. But nothing can – especially not government.
Free men cannot solve all problems of men or the Universe – that power does not exist. All action has consequences, which requires more action – and new consequences and so on.
However, the action of Free men is the optimum solutions to solvable problems. But most problems are not solvable.
I know that fact is disagreeable to you – I appreciate that you are, in many ways, a compassionate person.
But hold this Universal and Infinite Fact.
Human suffering will always exist. It is the Universal condition of mankind.
Transferring the suffering from one person onto another innocent person does not end suffering – it multiplies it.
April 7, 2010 at 2:11 pm
What a moroon! The designate “town” implies a structure. That structure, whether communal or constitutional is government, an agreed upon set of rules for behavior of those in the “town”.
Notice, there is no admission that violence exists, just a rejection that it “has to”.
Hey, pal, you’ve already proven that you don’t understand the damned word. Why make a claim based on a word you don’t understand with no support? Oh yeah. You’re an idiot.
Not very good at making a comparative advantage case, are you, BSFlag?
Most of us call that reaction, and recognize it’s necessity.
Why? You’ve admitted that the actions of “Free Men” are reactions, so why assume a superiority of value where you can’t show any? It strikes me from your BS that the freest man is the one who chooses to take the most in reaction to stress. Don’t blame me, pal, you argued that very thing.
This is the part you just don’t get, puppy. Most of us don’t find it ‘disagreeable’. We find it unnecessary. That is the whole point of the rule of law, an ideal you avoid like the plague. I’ve no doubts that you find yourself some kind of giant baddass who has transcended to the realm of ultimate freedom, but your thoughts are muddied and inconsistent. You mistake choice for reaction, and reaction for choice. You deny the very nature of the human animal which is precisely social.
OOOOHHHH, Scawy. And complete bullshit. Sharing a load often alleviates suffering for all parties doing the carrying. The load still needs to go from a to b. There is little or no reason why any have to suffer to get it there.
Those who’ve called you an anarcho-capitalist are simply wrong. You are a feudalist, BSFlag. You think yourself a lord, among those who think you’re full of shit. The consequence of your reaction to not being the big cheese is that, when push comes to shove, we will kill you and eat you. And of course, use your broken bones to till our crops.
April 7, 2010 at 1:26 pm
If we’ve learned anything from Weimar Germany, its never elect to government someone who’s sworn to destroy it. Oh wait, I guess we didn’t learn anything from Weimar Germany.
April 7, 2010 at 2:21 pm
“Everything the State says is a lie, and everything it has it has stolen.”
~ Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spake Zarathustra
April 7, 2010 at 2:41 pm
Wulfgar,
So you confuse “organizations” with “government”.
So the Boy Scout is a government?
The Red Cross is a government?
You have faulty understanding and faulty definitions – thus, the reason you are so confused.
People organize just fine without requiring to inflict violence on non-violent people.
No where have I denied that violence exists. The Universe is violent by its nature.
I have discussed the application of violence as a means to obtain human needs and wants.
A whole paragraph, but totally empty and pointless – what “word’ did I not understand?
Fredrick Hayek explained it succinctly in his Nobel Prize speech:
If man is not to do more harm than good in his efforts to improve the social order, he will have to learn that in this, as in all other fields where essential complexity of an organized kind prevails, he cannot acquire the full knowledge which would make mastery of the events possible.
….
There is danger in the exuberant feeling of ever growing power which the advance of the physical sciences has engendered and which tempts man to try, “dizzy with success”, to use a characteristic phrase of early communism, to subject not only our natural but also our human environment to the control of a human will.
The recognition of the insuperable limits to his knowledge ought indeed to teach the student of society a lesson of humility which should guard him against becoming an accomplice in men’s fatal striving to control society – a striving which makes him not only a tyrant over his fellows, but which may well make him the destroyer of a civilization which no brain has designed but which has grown from the free efforts of millions of individuals.
I have no idea what fantasy you are creating here.
You do not have the power to eliminate suffering. You do not control Nature.
Your belief, therefore, is irrational.
Again, you are ignorant.
Natural Law cannot be avoided. It sorta is
Government Law is artifical – fake, and evil.
When you support the rule of evil – you get evil.
You argue you are an animal. You will find no argument against your specific claim.
Society prospers when free men, voluntarily, act to their own benefit free from the imposition of other men.
Society is endangered by men, who believe they have a right to force other non-violent men to obey edicts.
Sharing is voluntary. The forceful transfer is not sharing – it is evil.
I like that – yep, there are two distinct classes – those that are free, those that are slaves and those that are enslavers.
More like Sovereign – your artifical laws do not apply to me.
I have never seen you anything but a violent animal.
You can kill me, but you will never have my obedience. ~ Ganhdi.
April 7, 2010 at 3:24 pm
You don’t understand the word, as I’ve so boldly pointed out. Government, an organizing principle. Yes, the Boy Scouts have a government. Any organization has a governing principle. A Government.
(God, I hate arguing with Neitzschean wankers.)
Prove just once how they have done so without a governing principle. What? You can’t do it? Are you full of shit? Of course you are.
Yes, and you’ve been off topic since the beginning because of your BS.
Government. Thanks for conceding the point.
Hayek:
Even Hayek admits that the rules of society are their’s alone to choose. You lone wolves? Food.
You are an idiot.
You do not have the power to eliminate suffering. You do not control Nature.
No, I alone don’t. But you do. Your belief is irrational. Your words, kitten.
Right, like Tim McViegh.
I’m not even gonna go into your sexist rhetoric. But it’s pretty obvious that any woman who deals with you better be ready for violent confrontation.
Stupid one, violence is often if not always a reaction to frustration.
Serfs always volunteer, right, your lordshit?
There’s more than that, but one would have to be smart to see it. You aren’t.
Try to kill me and let’s find out. After all, you think I’m violent, right?
Then try and kill me. Let’s test your natural law. Or are you really a pussy at heart? Yeah, I thought so.
You’ve never *seen* me as anything. You are nothing but an internet tough guy, claiming bullshit you can’t support. You don’t know me, but you will accuse me of violence because you are weak. You think *violence* is disagreeing with your colossal bullshit. It isn’t, kitten.You have nothing to teach anyone, except the idea that you are somehow better than we are.
April 7, 2010 at 3:42 pm
Wulfgar,
Then the word becomes meaningless to separate the US GOVERNMENT from your stamp club.
As a nihilist, your goal is to subtract meaning from all things – and then you redefine them at your leisure.
To you, this is “winning”.
To me, it is merely a display of ignorance.
You believe in God?
Your family.
I’ve provided a concise definition that accurately describes the topic.
Only you (well, maybe a couple of others somewhere) complete confuses the Boy Scouts with the US Marines, the Red Cross with the New York Police Dept., and Mom&Pop Inc., with the US Senate.
Again, you are willfully ignorant.
I have not disputed the existence of rules.
I have complained that any rule with legitimizes the use of violence on non-violent men as Evil
Those, as you, who promote such evil – should you become dominate – will destroy social order and society.
In all manner of human personal interaction, the prohibition of violence on non-violent men is absolute. There exists in civilization no justification for one man to attack a non-violent man – zero.
Government, as a force of evil, retains this as its self-proclaimed right. Thus, contradicts civilization.
If the goal is to destroy civilization your path will prove fruitful.
If the goal is to enhance civilization your path must be avoided and dismissed with the greatest urgency.
So you believe he didn’t impose?? Do you understand the meaning of the statement?
You have a problem understanding simple concepts.
Regardless of the reason, it is an act of Evil to attack an non-violent person.
Just checkin’ if you actually read because your past comments are not showing that.
Therefore yours is a failure of comprehension.
I do not attack non-violent men.
You have to go “first”. That’s the LAW.
Hmm…. I do not “accuse” you. You admitted it.
Man, you don’t even comprehend your own statements!
How do you get along in a day?
You appear angry, confused, contradicted and frustrated. I wonder why?
April 7, 2010 at 4:26 pm
“I do not attack non-violent men.”
Yet it is you who would define what constitutes a violent act to which you would react with violence.
Which leaves you no better a person than the person who inflicted an act upon you. For it is you who defines violence.
In a society built upon law, violence is defined so that all understand where the line is drawn, and what the consequences are.
In your mind, you define violence, and when and to what degree violent retaliation is appropriate.
This is no better than me needing to trust the Ted Kaczynski’s of the world not to kill me if I sneeze wrong. I would never trust one like yourself.
There is nothing to keep you (possibly a member of that 1% “brain damaged” population you disparaged earlier in this manifesto of yours) and your fluctuating brain chemistry from deciding one day that your neighbor looked at you wrong, and that constituted violence, and you killed him.
No, you Black Flag, are a dangerous man, and if you run afoul of the laws of the state, you will end up in jail, which is where you would belong.
I just hope you don’t kill someone first for violating your self-understood and “(un)natural laws.” History is full of examples where innocent people have died needlessly at the hands of those handing out self-proclaimed justice. You are nothing better than a vigilante.
Since April 19th is coming up, I’d point to Tim McVeigh and his bombing of the Murrah Building. Revenge for acts of violence that he imagined had been propagated upon him by the federal government.
April 7, 2010 at 4:38 pm
JC,
It is an uncomplicated word.
The definitions is simple.
So many words, yet lacking so much substance.
Violence – “is the expression of physical or verbal force against self or other, compelling action against one’s will on pain of being hurt”
For those that require violence upon non-violent men, redefining the word “violence” as it appears you wish to do is required.
When people are confounded to understand the difference between violence and choice, the likes of violent men have great power.
They can justify evil by redefining the actions of other non-violent men to be “evil”.
It is called “Revolution within the Form” – redefining words and symbols to be different, or even opposite of their true meaning.
Nothing but his right to defend himself from an unreasoned attack.
It does not matter, JC, that the attacker is mentally ill or perfectly sane.
An attack of violence on a non-violent man is NOT A RIGHT
Ah, such anger you have against those that refuse your violence!
I agree. Most of it at the hands of government.
200 million dead at the hands of their own government in the 20th Century – exceeding those killed by natural disaster.
Revenge – upon the non-violent – is what you claim is a Right.
I do not.
There is no right to inflict violence on non-violent men.
Are the words I use too big or complicated for you?
April 7, 2010 at 6:38 pm
“Are the words I use too big or complicated for you?”
No. I just refuse to let you define them for me.
I do not trust you to define violence for me. Or for you to decide when it is appropriate to retaliate with violence.
You are a madman. A sociopath. And if you break the laws of this country, you will end up in jail where you belong.
April 7, 2010 at 6:41 pm
JC.,
Yet, you do not define your words – so mine are, by default, the definition.
So, do you follow evil law, JC?
April 7, 2010 at 7:13 pm
back to the beginning bf:
j-girl asked;
“How does allowing discrimination against a particular group of individuals help their freedom? How does it impinge yours?”
you answered;
The right of association.
“It is the use of violence to force association that creates conflict.”
who is forcing you to associate with anyone?
and what conflict is created other than the fears that your own erroneous neuroses manufacture out of thin air.
peacable people of differing backgrounds should be able to live, work and associate with one another without conflict. all it takes is a modicum of manners which are defined and bounded by the precept of treating each other as we would have others treat us. is that so hard to live up to that giving others equal rights is a threat to your freedom to associate? have you no forbearance in public? can you not live with others who do not share your skin, beliefs and lifestyles, bf?
i find difference is what makes this country great and interesting. do you not? or are you forever threatened by any who differ from your freeman beliefs?
i think you are a hysterical nut who needs some diversification in life. fear is consuming you and preventing you from the rich diversity of the world.
locking the world out to acquire freedom is no freedom at all.
April 7, 2010 at 7:39 pm
bf- your version of freedom sounds like prison to me.
“The mind is its own place, and in itself, can make heaven of Hell, and a hell of Heaven.”- Milton
your mind is working overtime to avoid dangers that do not exist so that you can wall yourself up in solitary confinement, brick by brick. logic can be tricky that way.
i didn’t like broccoli when i was a kid. but someone impinged on my freedom so that i could get past my fears in order to nourish my body.
you need to nourish your soul. your fear based beliefs are so intrinsically evil that the hairs on my neck stand up when i read your arguments trying to justify such a narrow neo-nazi like definition of freedom.
April 7, 2010 at 6:12 pm
Wrong again. The word just has a meaning you don’t understand. It’s okay. You’re an idiot. I think most accept that at this point.
Except that I have demonstrably shown what the word means and you haven’t. You’re blaming me for your failure, kitten. How can you possibly claim that I’m a nihilist, save that you’re a frighted little jackass flailing for any insult that sticks?
Would it matter? It still wouldn’t make Neitzschean wankers any more useful. Masturbate on your own time, buddy. Don’t make the rest of us watch.
Family implies a governing principle. Are you denying parentage? Hi, Stewy. (What a fucking wanker you are.)
Liar.
You’re flailing, wanker. Not one of us has confused anything of the sort. You simply wish to believe we have because you’re losing the argument and are desperate.
No, you’ve simply promoted a rule that doesn’t exist.
Again you accuse with no foundation. You are a wimp. You are frightened. You “complain”. You have no basis for your claim.
Based on what moral authority that exists in reality?
You’re a goddamned fruitcake aren’t you? Government is not a force of *evil*, unless those who agree to such government choose for it to be.
Yours would do it quicker.
My path is the rule of law. You have yet to even deal with my path. You are a wanker.
No. I understand simple people. How’d you place in the last Special Olympics? Lost? Hardly surprising.
What a fucking liar you are:
Liar.
So far, I’ve been kicking your ass, so I guess I get along pretty well.
April 7, 2010 at 4:56 pm
Susan L. Stuckey was suicidal when the police arrived at her apartment in Prairie Village, Kansas on March 31. When the police arrived to conduct what they dishonestly called a “welfare check,” Stuckey refused their offer to “help.”
Police had paid several previous visits to Stuckey, who reportedly suffered from severe emotional problems. On this particular occasion, when they materialized shortly after daybreak, they were acting on ulterior motives. “Our intent was to take her to K.U. Med for a mental evaluation,” admitted Police Captain Tim Schwartzkopf following the confrontation.
Any day that begins with the arrival of armed strangers on one’s doorstep is going to end badly. Despite her afflictions, Stuckey was lucid enough to understand that principle, and she did the entirely rational thing: She bluntly invited the police to direct their unwanted attention elsewhere. Since she wasn’t suspected of a crime, that should have ended the matter.
But the police weren’t investigating a crime. They were carrying out a much more dangerous function: They were there to “help” Stuckey, whether or not this would be appropriate, and her desires were irrelevant to the matter.
So when Stuckey rebuffed their offer, the police decided to “help” her a little bit harder by calling in a posse of uniformed knuckle-draggers called the Tactical Squad. Oddly enough, the arrival of yet another contingent of armed strangers – this one decked out in military garb and carrying high-caliber firearms – did nothing to ease Stuckey’s troubled mind. She had already refused to grant police access to her apartment, and the arrival of the local goon squad prompted her to throw up additional barricades.
For more than two hours, the police tried to browbeat Stuckey into surrendering to them. According to neighbors who witnessed the event, the troubled 47-year-old woman – whose mental distress was genuine – was made frantic by this persistent, unwelcome attention.
Sometime around 9:45 a.m., Stuckey was heard to exclaim to the police, “Somebody please kill me.”
So they did.
http://www.freedominourtime.blogspot.com/
April 7, 2010 at 6:38 pm
Wulfgar,
More irrational responses
Oh? Where have you defined “government”?
More emotional rant.
You believe -as a Parent – you can inflict violence on your children?
More emotional ranting
More emotional ranting.
No, I dispute that you can create rules that apply to me
You admitted it.
My moral authority and that of civilized men.
Government requires the use of violence on non-violent men to enforce its edicts. This is a core premise of all governments.
Thus, its core is Evil
Freedom destroys civilization?
If the law is evil, do you still follow it?
More emotional rant.
Quote:
we will kill you and eat you
The truth hurts, doesn’t it Wulfgar?
Hmm… you are a delusional fellow, aren’t you?
April 7, 2010 at 7:48 pm
Lots of converts you got here, I bet.
Lol.
April 7, 2010 at 7:57 pm
Problem Bear
The “anti”-discrimination laws – government law that prevents me from saying “no” to dealings with persons for (select a reason).
The government law that prevents me from selecting my own customers.
“Should” – yes.
What “manners” any particular social group adhere to has no bearing on my rights
There exists no Human Right which exceeds another Human Right – there is no “better” human rights nor “lessor” human rights. There is no “more equal than others”.
A force of violence which compels me to accept persons for business or association that I do not wish to deal with is an affront to my Rights.
My behavior may be tempered by societal norms – but that is my choice, not society, to temper them.
Society uses non-violent enforcement – such as shunning and ostracizing – as powerful actions to compel compliance of norms.
To use violence to enforce morals and/or norms is an act of evil.
It is you who demands that I comply with your belief and lifestyle.
My philosophy of “do not impose” means I move through society voluntarily – me to society and society to me.
If I do not impose, you can carry whatever belief, norm, structure you wish – it matters not one wit to me – as should my believes, norms and structure to you – I am not forcing them on you.
The conflict comes when you disagree with my norms – norms that do not effect or involve you. You believe you can enforce yours by the use of violence on me – where I have done no violence on you.
Then we have problems.
Yes!
For to be different from a belief of freedom must mean you disparage, attack and destroy freedom and that is a threat to me.
Diversity? Where you demand compliance to your single moral believe? Where you determine, for me, my right?
No, sir. Yours is a destruction of diversity and a force of single minded compliance.
Freedom is the goal.
You reach yours your way and leave me, in peace, to my way, and then voila! we both become free!
April 7, 2010 at 8:07 pm
bf: you said
“For to be different from a belief of freedom must mean you disparage, attack and destroy freedom and that is a threat to me.”
i didn’t say different from freedom, bf. i said different from your freeman beliefs. there is a difference. your twisted version of freedom is freedom for you and your kind to hate and fear others. mine is freedom for all.
i believe the posse disparages, attacks and destroys freedom with hatred.
April 7, 2010 at 8:17 pm
Problem Bear,
You seem to believe you know my “beliefs”. You continue to try to ‘label’ me – but as already explained, that attempt is fraught with the fallacy of generalities.
However, every time you do try you always get it wrong and distort things.
I take the root of the word “freemen” as “Free Men”
I await your definition, should it be different from mine.
Freedom “for all” can only be achieved when no man imposes himself upon another man.
Men free to act in any manner they chose, so long as it does not impose upon another.
Pretty simple, no?
Hatred is a right.
Inflicting violence on non-violent people as a result of such anger is not a right.
April 7, 2010 at 8:26 pm
it is notable that you do not disown my use of the word “posse” to describe your beliefs.
i believe you are being coy here and shy about the fringe beliefs that fuel your fervor here. am i right?
let’s see if the puzzle pieces fall into place here….
http://www.publiceye.org/rightist/idennlns.html
April 7, 2010 at 9:00 pm
Problem Bear,
“posse” –
Etymology: Medieval Latin posse comitatus, literally, power or authority of the county
Date: 1645
1 : a large group often with a common interest
I am not a large group :)
From your article:
…mask the same underlying fascist goals…
Fascism is a Statist ideology.
I am quite “anti”-Statist, so as such, I am unclear regarding your reference.
April 7, 2010 at 9:21 pm
i didn’t state you are “a large group” bf. i stated that you are a member of posse comitatus. do you deny it?
simple question. i find it interesting that you skirt it with weasel words.
April 7, 2010 at 9:25 pm
Bear,
I posted the definition of “posse” as you posted.
In another post, you used “posse comitatus” and I posted that definition too.
I am not a county, nor am I an authority in a county.
I do not think you know the definitions of the words you are using.
April 7, 2010 at 8:09 pm
Problem bear,
For some, indeed, the prospect of leaving a prison is their worse nightmare.
There are many cases of men committing crimes so to go back to prison, for the life of the free is hard, difficult and a struggle.
The famous Prisoner of the Bastille was such a man. The mob freed him from decades in a small cell, only to find he refused to leave.
I do understand how you may feel in such context.
Logic is only one part, Bear.
One can be perfect logical, and get the wrong answer because one starts with a faulty premise.
So it is with governments. The premise that the solutions to the problems of men requires violence on non-violent men is a horrific basis for any society.
I take it you were beaten as a child.
Freedom is the lack of imposition of men upon their brothers.
This is what you call evil.
You are truly a scary man.
April 7, 2010 at 8:25 pm
Interesting observations from the ‘Net that apply to a few here:
1. That the only sure way of protecting oneself against violence, aggression and coercion is to help institute and continually support a vast, monopolistic apparatus of institutionalized violence, aggression and coercion.
2. That the only sure way of protecting one’s private property rights is to help institute and continually support a coercive entity whose representatives do not own any of the said entity’s assets, and yet arrogate to themselves the right to expropriate any private property owner for the purposes whose utility it is up to them to appraise.
3. That the free market economy, whose participants – in order to prosper – have to supply one another with productive goods and services, as well as bear the full financial responsibility for the potential failures of their actions, can survive only when subjected to the regulation of a monopolistic group of non-producers, who can always shift the costs of their failures onto the shoulders of producers.
4. That statist coercion is necessary to enforce contracts, and yet the alleged “social contract” that is supposed to establish the state needs no meta-state to enforce it, thus effectively becoming a self-enforcing anomaly.
5. That the wielders of any given monopolistic apparatus of compulsion and aggression use it out of altruistic motives, but if they were to stop using coercive methods (political activity) and instead turn to voluntary methods (market activity), their altruism would be immediately supplanted by base, greed-driven egoism.
6. That states, institutions responsible for some 200 million cruel deaths in the 20th Century alone, are supposed to offer protection from “private criminals,” who even in their most organized form of international mafia networks never managed to take even the tiniest fraction of the statist death toll.
7. That the state of anarchy among individuals, each of which can generally finance his activities out of his private pocket only, would lead to an intolerable escalation of violence and bloodshed, but the state of anarchy among states, each of which can impose the costs of its activities (including warfare) on private individuals, is at least a tolerable and relatively peaceful arrangement.
8. That the lack of an external, monopolistic enforcer of agreements among individuals would lead to endless conflict, but the lack of an external, monopolistic enforcer of agreements among various organs of the state does not prevent them from cooperating effectively and even benevolently.
9. That ceding the task of maintaining justice onto an entity that is both monopolistic and coercive will not lead to it continually perverting justice in its favor.
10. That the notion of checks and balances whereby the rulers control the ruled and the ruled control the rulers does not violate the principle of Occam’s razor, suggestive of the vision in which a single group of self-ruling individuals keeps itself in peaceful balance just fine.
11. That the ruled are wise enough to choose their rulers, but not wise enough to choose the way to use their own money.
12. That a pair of travelers bumping into each other in the middle of a desolate forest do not immediately get at each other’s throats only because they fear being punished by the state.
13. That an institution which forcibly imposes its protective services on others, unilaterally determines their price and excludes all competition in this area will not attempt to benefit from initiating conflicts or letting them develop rather them resolving them or preventing their occurrence.
14. That compulsory expropriation of an individual’s private property need not be considered as a violation of anyone’s rights (given unilaterally determined “due monetary compensation”), but refusing to give up a portion of one’s independently created or contractually acquired belongings is a straightforward violation.
15. That political rights precede property rights, which presumably means that the supposed original social contract was concluded by a bonfire in a cave and written down on the cave wall, or else the conditions of the pre-contract world allowed for creating the capital necessary to (at least) house the social contractors and provide them with ink and paper in some mysterious, propertyless way.
16. That having a sufficiently large clientele turns what is normally considered a robbery into what is commonly accepted as part of a necessary social service.
17. That a relatively small group of people is capable of possessing more knowledge and making more informed decisions with regard to directing the activities of any given society than the whole rest of the society in question.
18. That the notion of equality before the law leaves place for functional privileges.
19. That unconditional respect for the principle of non-aggression is “absolutist,” but unconditional respect for state-legislated law is not.
20.That the prevalence of statism indicates the advantageous of statism, as if the same could not be once said about astrology, witch-hunting, slavery and legal racial discrimination.
21. That each of the above assertions is solidly justified, both theoretically and empirically, while the negation of any of them lies essentially beyond the pale of reasonable discussion.
April 7, 2010 at 9:04 pm
sounds like a hater trying to justify his hatred. that isn’t freedom. it’s just hate.
April 7, 2010 at 9:12 pm
You have a problem, Bear.
You live in a contradiction.
April 7, 2010 at 9:34 pm
Straight out of Strike the Root.
So much for original thought…
So here’s a new avatar to replace your black anarcho flag one with:
Oh, and here’s a jingle to go with:
“Insects invading your corner of the world? Whatever insect you’re fighting, Black Flag® is dedicated to providing the tools you need to regain control.”
April 7, 2010 at 9:55 pm
JC,
You missed here…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Anarchism
and here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_black_flags
It is common symbol of Anarchists –
I am amazed that this surprises you.
…though I like what you did with it! Notice: I just “stole” it ;)
April 7, 2010 at 8:50 pm
the arguments that bf uses have been used before; in mississippi, selma, alabama etc. claiming that their white “freemen” freedoms are somehow infringed upon when people different from them are allowed to have equal rights.
they are called hate groups for a reason.
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/news/will-we-once-again-reject-the-politics-of-hate
April 7, 2010 at 9:03 pm
Problem Bear,
What arguments have ‘been used before’?
It is obvious you do not read my posts, or you do not understand “Rights” at all.
April 7, 2010 at 9:08 pm
i have gleaned enough from you to tell you are a member of posse comitatus. am i wrong?
i have gleaned enough of your rants to see that you love hatred more than freedom. am i wrong?
i have read enough of your justifications to tell me that you are a racist, homophobe who clings to any argument that denies other people’s rights in order to justify your hatred. am i wrong?
April 7, 2010 at 9:18 pm
Bear
Posse Comitatus – power or authority of the county.
I am not a ‘county’ nor have I any authority in any ‘county’.
I do not understand your reference.
I would say Yes, since I’ve never said I hate anything
So you believe that a man who protects his Rights is a racist and/or a homophobe?
April 7, 2010 at 9:23 pm
i believe you are. am i wrong?
April 7, 2010 at 9:27 pm
Bear,
That was not the question. Try again.
“So you believe that a man who protects his Rights is a racist and/or a homophobe?”
April 7, 2010 at 9:33 pm
first of all-i do not concede that you are “protecting your rights” by denying the rights of others. that is just demented hate group think that i, and martin luther king jr’s supporters believe is a lie.
which means i do not.
but in the case of a man who pretends to “protect his rights” such as you, yes i do believe you are a racist and a homophobe. i don’t hear you denying it.
April 7, 2010 at 9:46 pm
Bear,
What “right” do you believe is being denied?
So what part of “right of association” misses you?
April 7, 2010 at 8:52 pm
On March 25 – 45 years ago today – the marchers reached the state capitol in Montgomery. Their courage, their example, inspired the introduction and passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, legislation that transformed our nation.
This past Sunday, Lewis was involved in another march. Along with other members of Congress, he walked up to Capitol Hill to cast a vote for health-care reform, another important piece of legislation with the potential to transform our nation.
But once again, Lewis was confronted with the ugly stain of racism. Angry “tea party” protesters shouted racial slurs at him and Rep. Andre Carson of Indiana. Another black congressman, Rep. Emanuel Cleaver of Missouri, was spit on. Rep. Barney Frank, an openly gay congressman, was the target of anti-gay epithets, and Rep. Ciro Rodriguez of Texas was called a “wetback.”
Lewis said that the protesters at the Capitol reminded him of the angry mobs that confronted him during the ugly days of civil rights movement in the 1960s.
The question now is whether America will respond as it did 45 years ago when it saw the pictures of the racism at the Edmund Pettus Bridge.
Will people of good faith – of all races and faiths – stand with Rep. Lewis and reject the politics of hate? Or will the angry mob, fueled by racism and demagoguery, continue to swell?
Will “the best of American instincts,” to use Dr. King’s words from 45 years ago, once again arise “passionately from across the nation to overcome” the hate and fear that threatens to engulf us?
April 7, 2010 at 8:58 pm
in case there are other brave haters out there-
i intend to rise passionately against bf and any hater who spreads their poison. no amount of word twisting will deter me. i am a bear of very little brain. but i know when i can smell a racist and a hater spreading his sick beliefs. i will stand up to any and all.
freedom with hatred is no freedom at all. that is god’s law.
April 7, 2010 at 9:11 pm
If you can’t accept freedom for who you despise, you don’t understand freedom at all.
Problem Bear,
You do not understand freedom – at all!
April 7, 2010 at 9:08 pm
Problem Bear,
Voting is NOT a Human Right. It is a grant from government.
To be able to vote in a nation-state, you must fulfill a number of requirements – typically called “citizenship”. Government sets the rules to who can or cannot vote – based on birth, documentation, age – and in some jurisdictions, sex and religion.
Those that see profit in controlling the centralized levers of extreme ‘legal’ violence have a stake in ‘voting’.
I do not vote. I haven’t voted for 40 years. I do not intend to ever vote. I see no profit in violence on non-violent men.
April 7, 2010 at 9:13 pm
you are shy and coy about your true beliefs bf, but there is no deterring me from my quarry. i am certain of who you are. deny it if you feel you must to save face here. i have a nose for these things.
April 7, 2010 at 9:21 pm
Bear,
When a man replaces his brain with his nose, every sneeze blows out brain cells.
April 7, 2010 at 9:26 pm
more weasel words. more skirting. i called you out on your beliefs. are you going to deny it? or just keep lobbing smoke grenades?
April 7, 2010 at 9:28 pm
Bear,
You are repeating nonsense.
If you have an argument, make it – rationally – in English.
April 7, 2010 at 9:39 pm
i will respond as i wish, bf. anyone here will tell you that i am untrainable.
i don’t respond to any commands from anyone…especially racists and homophobes.
sadly, they are too filled with self-loathing and twisted lies to argue against. so i use my nose. and since you refuse to deny that you are a member of posse comitatus, i can only assume that you are and direct everyone here to read the link and make up their own minds whether you are worth arguing with.
i dismiss you as a liar and a hater.
April 7, 2010 at 9:51 pm
Too bad for your wife – if you have one. :)
You go in circles of nonsense.
I’ve presented the definition – of which I do not fit any of it.
Yet, that is meaningless to you.
You are thoughtless and lost.
To claim a liar, you must demonstrate a lie. You cannot.
You violate the “Do not bear false witness”.
To claim “hater” you have to demonstrate hate. You cannot.
You again, violate “Do not bear false witness”
You are dismissed.
April 7, 2010 at 10:22 pm
After all these years blogging, I’ve finally figured out what a troll is. It’s Black Flag posting 100 comments, most of them off point. Lots of folks provided thoughtful responses, out of feeling of responsibility, I suppose — but finally they grew weary. It’s good to see that most of the folks that comment here have other lives.
Black Flag’s talking points come from libertarian think tanks and Fox News. Throw in his Social Darwinism and you’ve got a toxic mix.
I’ll be glad when he moves his focus onto other subjects and other sites, although I imagine he’ll be repeating the same lines.
April 7, 2010 at 10:28 pm
Interestingly, Petealbot, you haven’t explained why you support violence on non-violent people – though, I do understand why you do not.
April 7, 2010 at 10:29 pm
“…understand why you do not offer such an explanation”
April 7, 2010 at 11:40 pm
yep, pete, this is what it looks like, but i feel it’s been very informative nonetheless. it can be an interesting exercise to engage a trollish-behaving commenter like bf. you just can’t take it too seriously. the kind of emotional response one particular b-birder gave bf is the kind of food trolls live on.
but it’s difficult, and i get caught up by this kind of baiting sometimes.
anyway, this has been sort of spectacular. i hope swede enjoyed his popcorn.
April 7, 2010 at 11:45 pm
Interestingly, Lizard, you, as well, haven’t explained why you support violence on non-violent people – though, I do understand why you do not offer such an explanation.
April 8, 2010 at 12:04 am
i gave you five stars. enjoy them.
April 8, 2010 at 12:17 am
Ah, thanks! Appreciated!
But I really wanted an answer….
..but, thanks nonetheless!
April 8, 2010 at 9:08 am
I give him one star for his continued trolling by use of ad hominem to build a strawman:
Do you beat your wife often?
April 8, 2010 at 9:49 am
JC,
That is not the same genre of question.
The wife/beat/often represents a no-win.
Either you do not beat her often (the “no” path) or you beat her often (“yes” path)
My question is “support violence on non-violent people”
The “no” path is “I don’t support violence”
The “yes” path is “I do support violence”
Clear now?
April 8, 2010 at 9:50 am
“ad hominem”
Where?
April 8, 2010 at 9:51 am
“strawman”
Where?
April 8, 2010 at 10:19 am
You’re so dense, you don’t even see what you are doing here.
Everybody else does.
Trolling, ad hominem, and strawman.
All rolled into one cute rhetorical statement, which of course you then say you know the answer to, and why the questioned won’t answer.
Weak and pathetic.
April 8, 2010 at 10:26 am
JC,
Such simple explanation of your mistake about question genre.
Simple question to ask where “ad homenien” was used.
Simple question to ask about the strawman.
No answers other than choleric response.
April 8, 2010 at 10:38 am
You were dissmissed
As a crackpot bf…
Don’t you work?
I do and nearly everyone else here does too. I have neither the time nor the inclination to respond to your nonsense.
I see you have flotsomed out in that swirling eddy of anarchic nihilism over at mark’s blog-piece of a broken mind. You belong there. Now scat before I get irritated.
April 8, 2010 at 10:49 am
I feel no need to explain myself or answer your questions.
You’re just grasping at straws looking for any shred of a statement to hang your argument on.
No, I’m not going to let you define the rules of engagement here.
You’re a troll. Plain and simple.
April 8, 2010 at 11:08 am
No answers, just anger and hatred and insult.
You are such good examples of the class.
April 8, 2010 at 11:18 am
The comments on this thread are the absolute best evidence I have ever seen as to why blogs are utter bullshit. All of you “experts” taking yourselves oh so seriously. Puhlease. Its pathetic.
And yes, I am on here, and yes I have read ALL the comments. Close to 200 “I’m smarter than you”, “No you’re not”, “Yes I am”, “Troll”, “Fascist”, “You Suck”, “No YOU SUCK” comments.
Can’t you see how funny this shit is??? Not one of you is changing hearts or minds or changing policy. Hell you are probably sitting there reading this in your pajamas and eating cat food.
April 8, 2010 at 12:03 pm
thank you for such an enlightening contribution, cynic.
personally, i have no respect for someone who makes use of a forum just to disparage it. if you think blogs are “utter bullshit” then don’t read them. it’s really that simple.
April 8, 2010 at 12:03 pm
Absolutely. That’s good enough reason to do it.
200 comments, here we come!
April 8, 2010 at 2:17 pm
Self-fullfilling prophecy if I ever did see one.
April 8, 2010 at 4:01 pm
Just because I’m not quite ready for this thread to die yet, once more unto the breach my friends. jhwygirl asked some very valid questions, and though it seems we’ve been distracted by BSFlag, in truth he’s unwittingly given some of the best answers. In truth, I don’t think he’s been trolling. He simply suffers from the same malady as all I dealt with in college who follow the stunted teachings of Friedrich Nietzsche. His interest is not in “natural law”, but in finding his own place as a special snowflake within natural law. He derisively writes:
Notice that JC is spot on. This is a Straw Man. BSF can’t actually point to anyone here who claims this, but he throws it out hoping something will stick. No, not so much. There is no “sure way” of protecting oneself against violence. Governments, small or large aren’t meant to do that. What they are meant to do is promote justice, a word that BSFlag has scrupulously avoided.
This is the most humorous part of BSF’s fantasy. Private property doesn’t exist, exist for what one has and can keep. Toddlers learn this, and Nietzscheans ‘unlearn it’. The act of taking something “private” is itself a violent appropriation. BSF seems to think that purchase of violent takings absolves one of any of the violence inherent in it’s capture. No, no no. It doesn’t. Never has, never will.
Notice how BSFlag assumes the role of the very government he despises in valuating what is produced by whom and for whom. I’d say the Interstate Highway system was a pretty big production, which came from that group of “non-producers” shifting the tab for that production onto “producers” who benefited greatly from the product. That’s called ‘sharing the load’. BSF doesn’t have the first clue what he’s talking about, but then that isn’t his goal. His goal is to be the special snowflake, and that defies reality from the onset.
That bunch of gobbledegook actually does make sense if one buys into the bullshit assumptions on which it is founded. The social contract is not a self-enforcing anomaly, but rather the self-enforcing norm. If one accepts that obvious fact, then that one can’t be the special snowflake. Hence, BS foolishly rejects it. A person who actually believed the tripe that BS spewed would leave such a social contract behind, say for the freedom loving shores of Somalia. Notice that BS would never do that. He wouldn’t be a special snowflake there. He’d be dead.
Again with the Straw Man. Not one person involved in this discussion has denied the self interest of those in government. That’s because rational folk don’t. But BS must, and further, he must assume that others do accept the daddy nature of government if BS is to be the Special Snowflake. But see, here’s the part he misses (and what makes him a favored of MT). In this country, under our social contract as codified and defined by the Constitution, we get to choose who these self-interested “monopolistic powers” are. And if we don’t like them, we get to kick their asses to the curb.
More Straw Man. See the above.
This just incoherent. BSFlag assumes that many can finance their own activities, either individually or as a state. This is the real problem with Nietzschean wankery, that idea that choices are or have ever been rational, and will lead to a more peaceful solution to problems at hand. More on this later.
Total denial. Conflict exists, a fact that Nietzschean wankers continually avoid. They make pretend causes for it, when the obvious is right in front of them. Reaction to actions of another. It is part of the dogma of “natural law” that we are free actors, able to choose. Notice what’s missing? The ability to choose rationally. The Nietzschean pretends that individuals have that power and organized structures don’t. It is an illusion. Once conflict happens (private property challenge) reaction will occur. BS avoids this fact like the plague. In his utopianic thinking, it will all just vaporize when statist violence is removed. No, it really won’t.
That’s about the first time I can see BS invoking justice at all. And here he has a point … save that he continues to ignore that in a Democratic Republic, the choices of the people are the “monolith”. (Cue up “Thus spake Zarathustra”.)
Now that’s just gibberish. And of course, a further Straw Man.
We’re entering Tea-Bagger fantasy land here. People in this country do get to choose how to spend their money.
This boy is reaching. Depends on who they are, now doesn’t it?
The military industrial complex. We know this. “Natural law” does nothing to prevent it.
And there really isn’t anything left to say about the rest of this guy’s bullshit. It’s the same old rehash of Straw Men and wankery.
All one really needs to know about BSFlag is this: He hails private property as a consequence of violence while denying that it could be. He disdains those who seek to defend law because the existence of law is an acknowledgment of the violence which went into it’s creation. That makes it evil. He defends the individual as a moral agent, when that does nothing to support justice, any more than defending the choices of individuals to form a unity. He doesn’t understand the words monopoly or government.
The problem with Nietzschean thinking, besides the personal desire for being the “special one”, is that it doesn’t accept that humans are often not rational agents. Behaviorism, rational choice theory, all point to the idea that we have motivators of reaction. BSFlag thinks that we are all free to act, and completely ignores that we are often not ‘free’ at all, but rather reacting. It’s an almost complete denial of consequence. He even admits as much but is too idiotic to see the import of that grand revelation. That’s why they get to define violence and still ignore it’s existence. In truth, the cult of “Natural Human Law” is nothing more than religion, which hopefully will not lead BSFlag to start kissing horses. (That’s a Nietzsche reference … look it up.)
April 8, 2010 at 4:56 pm
Wulfgar,
I appreciate the effort.
Now, on to battle!
The persistent attempts of finding some label for me is your undoing. It creates faulty assumptions of argument that always lead you to contradict yourself.
These series of paragraphs, which (thanks to JC for finding the original source as these were delivered via email to me) which generally expresses the multitude of contradictions of Statists (those that support the State) hold.
Agreed.
But using the greatest user of violence on men to protect men from great violence is a contradiction.
“Justice” is subjective (unless, of course you offer a compelling definition)
Your “justice” may require heads to roll, whereas others may require merely an apology.
Government does not promote justice at all.
You cannot claim justice from an entity that believes it can force non-violent men to follow its edicts – that is the highest measure of injustice – using violence upon non-violent people.
Of course, without an accurate definition of government from you, it is hard to actually see where you believe “justice” derives out of government.
A contradiction – a paraphrase of your statement; private property doesn’t exist except when it does.
Incorrect.
The act of “taking” may involve violence – or I can buy it (non-violent) or make it (non-violent).
Private property exists because a man requires resources to live.
For him to use the resources, he must claim exclusive use of that resource. The apple I eat cannot be eaten by you.
We have only two choices to obtain those resources:
Theft – the manner you promote ie: violence
Earn – the manner civilization has learned that promotes social order.
To established Earns requires ownership – the ability to claim that this is mine and not yours. Dispute of ownership can be handled violently (Wulfgar way) or economically (civilized way).
The ultimate ownership is of one’s self, and is subject to the same natural conditions – act with violence on others (Wulfgar way) to seize human property (enslave) OR one can prohibit such violent act and act in a way so not to impose on another (civilized way).
The choice exists, but they are exclusive.
What Wulfgar does not see is that Toddlers actually learn the Law of Mutuality – that if one punches, the response is to punch back. This is basic and instinctual by almost all of us.
What determines maturity is the understanding that by not punching also creates a consequence – that no one has a right to punch back.
We move from “Eye for an Eye” to “Do unto others as ye have done unto you” philosophy as we (hopefully) mature.
Many do not make this transition.
We agree here. However, everything that is valued is owned by a human, thus purchasing is a valid means of acquisition
You can only claim this if you believe everything is produced by government.
Yet, government produces NOTHING.
Everything it has it seizes from the people – either the goods directly or by taxation and by other coercive means.
But NOTHING the government does is free of coercion and violence.
Roads were created by companies and men. Before government, there were roads.
Your fallacy holds that roads can only be created by government and that government actually created the roads.
In fact, they seized the land (expropriation) and seized the funds (taxes) and paid companies with stolen funds to build the roads on expropriated land.
Nothing government does is without violence somewhere.
A perverse concept of “sharing”! No less than a bank robber who steals money from the bank and its customers – they shared a contribution to his bounty!
“Forced” sharing at gun point is theft.
Ad homenien. Sadly, it didn’t take you long!
Then you do not understand contracts at all.
Two parties cannot create a contract between them that binds a third. If Swede and I contract that you owe us your house, it cannot be binding. This is the essence of a contract.
From the beginning, social contract theory cannot exist.
Hobbes’ Social Contract theory was broadly refuted and criticized even in his own time.
In fact, after the single essay he produced that first mentioned his idea, he never brought the topic forward again in any of his future essays.
Regardless of the broad refutation of many at the time (Locke and Rosseau being among the more famous), it is obvious why government apologists would seize Hobbes work as their own and ignore everything else – searching for justification for their violent authority beyond simplistic “God said so”, Hobbes delivered a wholly faulty but articulate case.
However, 400 years later, the basics of ‘contract’ still undermines the “Social Contract Theory” – that other men have no right to compel others non-violent men to their rules and norms.
End Part One.
April 8, 2010 at 5:13 pm
For those of you who do not want to read the Tolstoyesque comments above, allow me to summarize.
“You are an idiot and I am smarter than you”
“You’re arguments against me are very stupid and prove that I am smarter than you”
Are we at 200 comments yet?
April 8, 2010 at 5:22 pm
Not quite.
Complain one more time …
April 8, 2010 at 5:23 pm
Oh screw you then, cynic.
WOOHOOO! 200, baby!
April 8, 2010 at 7:03 pm
queer as i wanna be – deal with it.
sorry folks, i just can’t be bothered with going back over all the comments. so, my first line sums up my opinion generally.
oh, and please join my facebook group crossdressing bathroom users for jesus.
oh, and tyler gernant for congress – unrelated, but important.
April 8, 2010 at 7:35 pm
That is not the complaint raised.
The complaint is coercive methods – that is, <b.violence and force to compel non-violent men to act in a manner that they would not have voluntarily chosen.
The core point I’ve raised and reraised:
“Do you believe you have a right to use violence on non-violent (innocent) people?”
The question is simple – the implications are huge.
Discarding the already refuted “Social Contract Theory” – you take up the Theory of Majority – that the Majority is always “right”.
But by what right does a mob make rights? Where did they get the right?
If a law is created that you like, does that make what you like right, even if it is evil?
Or does the Majority define evil?
Further, the Constitutions does not, nor ever has “Defined” any contract nor rights.
The Constitution is supposed to define the limits on government action.
But the Constitution is enforced upon Government by Government, and with no surprise, the Government chooses what, when and if it abides by it.
As the famous jurist, Black, suggested in his essays, Government as the creator of its own laws for itself, and the sole enforcer of law on itself is a horrific contradiction, yet every government exists in this way.
It is an undisputed fact. Death by “your” Government was the #1 killer of mankind in the 20th Century – and this is NOT counting death by the wars. It exceeded death by drownings (floods, etc.). For the first time in recorded history man killed more of man then Nature.
It is a great condemnation of the State.
Men organize themselves, naturally, for peaceful cooperation. This is an observable fact – and thus, hardly incoherent.
It is an observable fact that men finance their own activities.
There are many, however, who hold dear their freedom but refuse the same to others.
Their mantra of the Statist:
“Freedom for me, but not for you”
That they exist is a fact.
The choice is how they are resolved.
Either by non-violent market forces, or by “Might is Right”.
Everyone who ever visited a post office understands the failure of institutions
Men organize and are as effect (or not) as the men in that organization.
But organizations that believe violence is the best solution to non-violent human problems presents a serious problem.
As typical, Statists cannot discern the difference between their local YMCA and the US Government. The lack of understanding between the core premise of organizations make them believe that the whether it is the Boy Scouts, the local Bakery or the US Marines and the US Congress are exactly the same thing.
Thus, they use “bait and switch” – point to the benign non-violent organizations of man as (false) proof that the violent, careless leviathan is worthy of adoration.
The response to conflict can take the path of violence or non-violence.
Civilization exists because men, as individuals, hold that no man has a right to initiate violence.
Barbarians hold no such concept.
The paths are clear – we can be Wulfgar’s Barbarians or Free men in Civilizations. They are exclusive.
As already articulated by me above, violence is the nature of the Universe.
The justification of violence is the question.
“Do you believe you have the right to do violence on non-violent men?”
And, as already pointed out – Utopia is your dream no private property, everyone trained the same, all believing the same thing, all under the authority of a central force of order and control obliterating freedom.
It is a simple understanding, Wulfgar.
If the ruled and the rulers control each other by pieces of paper of full of rules, that is precisely the same as people in a group performing the same function – without the need to inflict violence on the innocent.
No, I get to choose how to spend MY money, not you.
Then you do agree that two strangers in a forest do not immediately attack each other – free of the State!
So, people do cooperate in peace without coercion of a threat of violence on their peace.
Ah, the confusion manifests!
Government “law” doesn’t prevent it either!
Natural Law states that your initiation of violence will be met by aRightful return of the same violence on you.
The Right of Self-Defense against the Initiator stands as a RIGHT (except when perverted by fake government law), where the initiation of violence stands as Evil which is never a Right.
Natural law needs no defense. It just is.
You confuse government law which uses violence on non-violent man with Rightful Law, which never justifies such evil.
To you, it is all the same, which is why you have no problem doing/supporting/condoning evil in government’s name.
All human action is ultimately individual
It is not the “Government” that pulls the trigger, it is the man.
It is not the “Office of the President” that drops the bombs, but that pilot.
All men are responsible for their own actions
This is the essential truth.
When the question is asked:
“Do you support evil law?”
– Wulfgar and JC are compelled to answer “yes” – because he believes his actions are “legal” by the law – because he does not measure law itselfat all.
Their only measure is through its creator; if government says “it’s legal” it is therefore justified in action – regardless of the evil on mankind.
They absolve themselves of their own actions by calling forth “government” as their redeemer.
Thus, the greatest future horrors of men upon man rests in their hands just as the greatest past horrors rested other men who claimed the same absolution.
Strawman.
Freedom is not the ability to “anything”. Nature does not allow you to flap your arms and fly.
Helvetius, 2000 years ago, understood what Wulfgar cannot “The free man is the man who is not in irons, nor imprisoned in a gaol (jail), nor terrorized like a slave by the fear of punishment… it is not lack of freedom not to fly like an eagle or swim like a whale.”
The question still stands, Wulfgar.
Do you believe you have the right to inflict violence on non-violent men?
April 8, 2010 at 7:36 pm
(oops, sorry, too many zeros, leaked into the quote)
200 years ago….
April 8, 2010 at 7:54 pm
Oh kitten. You have been played for amusement. No one need answer your droll-ass questions. They don’t matter anymore than you do.
April 8, 2010 at 7:59 pm
The avoidance and subsequent lack of an answer is the answer.
Your fear of the implications silences you.
April 8, 2010 at 8:00 pm
Amen to that.
One of these days, I want to be there when you call someone “kitten”….I’ll buy the beer.
April 9, 2010 at 4:34 pm
Consider it done!